Exploring Opportunities to Aid Generation of Input Action Ideas for Tangible User Interfaces

Novice tangible interaction design students often find it challenging to generate input action ideas for tangible interfaces. To identify opportunities to aid input action idea generation, we built and evaluated a tool consisting of interactive physical artifacts coupled with digital examples of tangible systems and technical implementation guidance. Through video recorded design sessions and interviews with twelve students, we investigated how they used the tool to generate input action ideas, how it supported them, and what challenges they faced. We found that the tool helped in generating input action ideas by enabling to experience input actions, supporting hands-on explorations, and introducing possibilities. However, introducing examples at times caused design fixation. The tool fell short in supporting the planning of technical implementation of the generated ideas. This research is useful for tangible interaction design students, instructors, and researchers to apply in education, design similar tools, or conduct further research.

[1]  B. Nijstad,et al.  Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: Exposure effects in an idea generation task , 2002 .

[2]  Claudia Eckert,et al.  Sources of inspiration: a language of design , 2000 .

[3]  Gabriela Goldschmidt,et al.  Inspiring design ideas with texts , 2011 .

[4]  Elise van den Hoven,et al.  Embodied metaphors in tangible interaction design , 2011, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[5]  Caroline Hummels,et al.  Ideating in Skills: Developing Tools for Embodied Co-Design , 2016, TEI.

[6]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces , 2000, IBM Syst. J..

[7]  Gerhard Fischer,et al.  Amplifying Designers’ Creativity with Domain-Oriented Design Environments , 1994 .

[8]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Bosu: a physical programmable design tool for transformability with soft mechanics , 2010, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[9]  John S. Gero,et al.  Design and other types of fixation , 1996 .

[10]  Caroline Hummels,et al.  The Blue Studio: Designing an Interactive Environment for Embodied Multi-Stakeholder Ideation Processes , 2017, Tangible and Embedded Interaction.

[11]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments , 2003 .

[12]  P. Ekman,et al.  Pan-Cultural Elements in Facial Displays of Emotion , 1969, Science.

[13]  Roope Raisamo,et al.  User experience and expectations of haptic feedback in in-car interaction , 2014, MUM.

[14]  Meng Wang,et al.  TwistBlocks: Pluggable and Twistable Modular TUI for Armature Interaction in 3D Design , 2018, Tangible and Embedded Interaction.

[15]  Kasper Hornbæk,et al.  Charting Subtle Interaction in the HCI Literature , 2019, CHI.

[16]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms , 1997, CHI.

[17]  Henrik Gedenryd.  How designers work - making sense of authentic cognitive activities , 1998 .

[18]  Dorian Peters,et al.  Toolkits, cards and games – a review of analogue tools for collaborative ideation , 2020, CoDesign.

[19]  D. Dahl,et al.  The Influence and Value of Analogical Thinking during New Product Ideation , 2002 .

[20]  Victor Kaptelinin,et al.  Affordances in HCI: toward a mediated action perspective , 2012, CHI.

[21]  T. B. Ward.  Structured Imagination: the Role of Category Structure in Exemplar Generation , 1994, Cognitive Psychology.

[22]  Timothy Merritt,et al.  Method Card Design Dimensions: A Survey of Card-Based Design Tools , 2013, INTERACT.

[23]  Gabriela Goldschmidt,et al.  Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance , 2006 .

[24]  Kristina Höök,et al.  The Aesthetics of Heat: Guiding Awareness with Thermal Stimuli , 2016, TEI.

[25]  Lassi A. Liikkanen,et al.  Exposure Effects in Design Idea Generation: Unconscious Conformity or a Product of Sampling Probability? , 2006 .

[26]  Orit Shaer,et al.  Tangible user interface laboratory: Teaching tangible interaction design in practice , 2009, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[27]  Donald A. Sch.  The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action , 1983 .

[28]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  The role of timing and analogical similarity in the stimulation of idea generation in design , 2008 .

[29]  Michael Golembewski,et al.  Ideation decks: a card-based design ideation tool , 2010, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[30]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Topobo in the wild: longitudinal evaluations of educators appropriating a tangible interface , 2008, CHI.

[31]  Paulo Blikstein,et al.  Creative Chunking: Modularity Increases Prototyping Quantity, Creative Self-Efficacy and Cognitive Flow , 2015 .

[32]  Giuseppe Riva,et al.  The Sociocognitive Psychology of Computer-Mediated Communication: The Present and Future of Technology-Based Interactions , 2002, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[33]  Joseph A. Paradiso,et al.  PingPongPlus: design of an athletic-tangible interface for computer-supported cooperative play , 1999, CHI '99.

[34]  Alex S. Taylor,et al.  Inspirational bits: towards a shared understanding of the digital material , 2011, CHI.

[35]  Alissa Nicole Antle,et al.  Using neurofeedback to teach self-regulation to children living in poverty , 2015, IDC.

[36]  N. Hoffart.  Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory , 2000 .

[37]  Pieter Jan Stappers,et al.  Collecting with Cabinet: or how designers organise visual material, researched through an experiential prototype , 2009 .

[38]  Alyssa Friend Wise,et al.  Youtopia: a collaborative, tangible, multi-touch, sustainability learning activity , 2013, IDC.

[39]  Peter Dalsgaard,et al.  Mapping the Landscape of Creativity Support Tools in HCI , 2019, CHI.

[40]  Alissa Nicole Antle,et al.  Idea Bits: A Tangible Design Tool to Aid Idea Generation for Tangible Manipulation , 2019, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[41]  Anna Vallgårda,et al.  Interaction Design as a Bricolage Practice , 2015, TEI.

[42]  Paulo Blikstein,et al.  Bloctopus: A Novice Modular Sensor System for Playful Prototyping , 2015, Tangible and Embedded Interaction.

[43]  Ben Matthews,et al.  Easy doesn’t do it: skill and expression in tangible aesthetics , 2007, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[44]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Tangible bits: beyond pixels , 2008, TEI.

[45]  Christine Nadel,et al.  Case Study Research Design And Methods , 2016 .

[46]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches , 1966 .

[47]  A. Osborn.  Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking , 1953 .

[48]  Min Fan,et al.  PhonoBlocks: A Tangible System for Supporting Dyslexic Children Learning to Read , 2015, TEI.

[49]  Lassi A. Liikkanen,et al.  Structural Tendencies and Exposure Effects in Design Idea Generation , 2006 .

[50]  Caroline Hummels,et al.  Move to get moved: a search for methods, tools and knowledge to design for expressive and rich movement-based interaction , 2007, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[51]  Jacob Buur,et al.  Designing the user actions in tangible interaction , 2005, Critical Computing.

[52]  Julie S. Linsey,et al.  The effects of representation on idea generation and design fixation: A study comparing sketches and function trees , 2016 .

[53]  Keyur Sorathia,et al.  Learning and Experience: Teaching Tangible Interaction & Edutainment , 2012 .

[54]  Ellen Yi-Luen Do,et al.  Extended linkography and distance graph in design evaluation: an empirical study of the dual effects of inspiration sources in creative design , 2010 .

[55]  R. J. Bogumil,et al.  The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[56]  Eiman Kanjo,et al.  EmoEcho: A Tangible Interface to Convey and Communicate Emotions , 2018, UbiComp/ISWC Adjunct.

[57]  Petra Badke-Schaub,et al.  What inspires designers? Preferences on inspirational approaches during idea generation , 2014 .

[58]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Design Principles for Tools to Support Creative Thinking , 2005 .

[59]  Eva Hornecker,et al.  Beyond affordance: tangibles' hybrid nature , 2012, TEI.

[60]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  RopePlus: bridging distances with social and kinesthetic rope games , 2011, CHI EA '11.

[61]  Greg Corness,et al.  Playing with the sound maker: do embodied metaphors help children learn? , 2008, IDC.

[62]  Nara L. Newcomer,et al.  User Centered Design , 2014, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[63]  Eva Hornecker,et al.  Creative idea exploration within the structure of a guiding framework: the card brainstorming game , 2010, TEI '10.

[64]  Caroline Hummels,et al.  Engage me, do!: engagement catalysers to ignite a (design) conversation , 2013, DPPI.

[65]  Jacob Buur,et al.  Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction , 2006, CHI.

[66]  Karin Niemantsverdriet,et al.  Interactive Jewellery as Memory Cue: Designing a Sound Locket for Individual Reminiscence , 2016, Tangible and Embedded Interaction.

[67]  Claudia Eckert,et al.  REFERENCES TO PAST DESIGNS , 2005 .

[68]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability engineering , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.

[69]  Matti Perttula,et al.  The idea exposure paradigm in design idea generation , 2007 .

[70]  Orit Shaer,et al.  Reality-based interaction: a framework for post-WIMP interfaces , 2008, CHI.

[71]  Tony P. Pridmore,et al.  Expected, sensed, and desired: A framework for designing sensing-based interaction , 2005, TCHI.

[72]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  The creative cognition approach. , 1995 .

[73]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces , 1990, CHI '90.

[74]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Kinetic sketchup: motion prototyping in the tangible design process , 2009, Tangible and Embedded Interaction.

[75]  William Gibson,et al.  Working with Qualitative Data , 2009, QMiP Bulletin.

[76]  Mark R. Cutkosky,et al.  Paper Robot: A Design Activity to Increase Beginner’s Prototyping Confidence with Microcontrollers , 2015 .

[77]  Stephan Wensveen,et al.  Interaction frogger: a design framework to couple action and function through feedback and feedforward , 2004, DIS '04.